The judge held that according to the Islamic religion, the woman
should submit completely to her husband´s will, thus effectively
accepting rape.

In European and American communities the principle of a secular law
equally applied to everyone is today being challenged, if not yet
under assault, by Muslim communities wanting to insert decisions made
in Islamic sharia ["the path"] courts and tribunals into the normal ,
common-law, legal system.

The question has arisen of whether legal decisions based on cultural
values at odds with democratic principles be accepted and
incorporated into laws of democratic countries in the name of
religious freedom.

A proposed amendment to the Constitution of Oklahoma, State Question
755, stating that, "The courts shall not look to the legal precepts
of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not
consider international law or sharia law," was blocked by an order of
U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange. Her decision was upheld by
the Federal 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver on January 10,
2012.

Proponents of the amendment argue that only the federal and state
laws of the U.S. should apply before the courts. Judge Miles-
LaGrange, however, in issuing a preliminary injunction preventing
implementation of the amendment, said that the amendment conveyed a
message that the state favored one religion or belief over others.
She argued it singled out sharia law,conveying a message of
disapproval of the Muslim faith, and had the effect of inhibiting the
Muslim religion. The Federal Court similarly held that the proposed
amendment was discriminatory because it twice specifically mentioned
sharia law.

A cardinal principle in democratic systems is that the same law
applies to everyone in the society -- and that this law is secular.
In European countries and in the United States, concepts of
multiculturalism and cultural relativism have led many groups in the
social fabric to assert their cultural heritage. In some cases, as in
the arts and literature, the result has been an eloquent profusion of
different heritages. In the political arena, however, the result has
been more problematic, sometimes threatening the rights of freedom of
expression and behavior as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the
US Bill of Rights, "Congress shall make no law respecting the
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free expression
thereof…."

Within the United States voluntary systems of rabbinical courts and
American Indian tribal courts have existed for some time, but they
have not intruded into the general legal system. The problem remains,
however, as stated in 2008 by the Archbishop of Canterbury, to "what
degree of accommodation the laws of the land can and will give to
minority communities within their strongly entrenched legal and moral
codes." The American philosopher John Rawls proposed a "comprehensive
doctrine" by which reasonable people accept the existence of
different beliefs about life and law, and do not impose their own
doctrine on others who are equally willing to abide by this principle.

The answer given by the Oklahoma electorate, in trying to prevent the
introduction of other systems of law, is that the secular state must
have a monopoly of legal authority. Because the proposed amendment
refers specifically to sharia law, it implies that Islamic values and
law might be harmful to individual rights and the rule of law.

Ironically, if the proposed amendment had not twice mentioned sharia
law, it might have been passed without effort.

The Supreme Court will have to face the constitutional question of
whether the judicial branch of government can block or veto a
decision of the people made in proper legal fashion -- the amendment
of the Oklahoma Constitution was approved by 70 percent of the
electorate in November 2010. But that question should not override
the issue, already a significant one in European countries,
especially in Britain, of whether Islamic sharia law is compatible
with a democratic legal system, or can be integrated into it. Can the
Islamic law applying to Muslims on issues of marriage, divorce,
inheritance, and custody of children be accepted as part of the
regular civil code?

This problem had already arisen in New Jersey. In August 2010, Judge
Joseph Charles, a family court judge, refused to grant a restraining
order to a woman who had been sexually abused by her Moroccan
husband. The judge held that the man thought he had behaved according
to his Muslim beliefs. His argument was that according to the Islamic
religion the woman should submit completely to her husband´s will, a
submission which in this instance meant having sex whenever he
desired, thus effectively accepting rape. The judge´s decision was
overruled by the Appellate Court of New Jersey, which held that the
religious beliefs of the husband were irrelevant to the case and that
assault was illegal. This ruling follows the well -known decision of
the Supreme Court in Reynolds v. United States, 1878, that the
claimed religious duty of a Mormon to engage in bigamy was not a
defense against criminal indictment.

No doubt there are some myths and social stereotypes that have been
articulated in the West, and may not be accurate representations
about behavior and relationships in the Islamic world. Nevertheless,
the starting point of objective analysis is that sharia law is not
compatible with democratic law.

Sharia law, which regulates all aspects of Muslim communal and
private life, is discriminatory against women and children, denying
them rights that have been won over the last two centuries in
democratic countries. Muslim women, treated as inferiors, are often
not allowed to take advantage of the protection from discrimination
or abuse provided by the secular courts. They are often pressured by
their families to go to tribunals where the principles of Sharia law
are applied. That law is implemented by councils, or arbitration
tribunals, that operate on religious principles, derived from a
number of sources: the Koran, the sayings and actions of Prophet
Muhammad, Islamic jurisprudence, and rulings or fatwas issued by
scholars. Can this law be compatible with that of law in states not
constructed on a religious basis? Can decisions from those courts be
considered part of the ordinary legal system?

It is difficult to envisage the compatibility of alternative legal
systems with the law in democratic societies, particularly with an
Islamic legal system that calls for the death penalty for apostasy,
sexual "crimes" of women including adultery, and homosexuality. Women
are handicapped on issues of marriage, divorce, inheritance, and
child custody. A Muslim man is permitted to have four wives and can
divorce one of them with ease, but women must follow a difficult path
to obtain a divorce. At the worst,women can be stoned to death for
sex outside marriage. Judgment in criminal cases can be harsh;
thieves may be punished by amputation.

The cases in Oklahoma and New Jersey have paved the way for an
important decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in the near future. Will
it allow Muslim law to be used in civil cases relating to the Muslim
community? Will the decisions of Sharia tribunals become legally
binding? Or will the Supreme Court decide, as did the highest court
in Britain, the Law Lords, when it ruled in a case involving a woman
and custody of her child in 2008, that the Sharia law applied in that
particular case was discriminatory and a violation of human rights?

It is not a manifestation of xenophobia or prejudice that the voters
in Oklahoma acted on the belief that Muslim Sharia law is
antithetical to democratic values. The courts and legislators in the
United States must be conscious of a real and growing difficulty in
our society.